Hon’ble Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri T.A. Singh, learned counsel for the Union of India.

2. The validity of the detention of Veeri Singh has been challenged in this writ petition. He has been detained by the District Magistrate, Firozabad respondent No. 3 by an order dated 18.09.2015 made by him under Section 3(2) National Security Act, 1980 (herein after referred as to NSA). The State Government after receipt of the opinion of the advisory board has approved the detention as required under Section 12(1) of that Act.

3. The activities on the basis of which the impugned detention order has been passed by the respondent No. 3 District Magistrate, Firozabad are said to have been taken place on 06.08.2015 at about 18:30 hours in Kasba Mohalla Charbag, Police Station Linepar, District Firozabad, in which two persons namely Kuldeep and Onkar Nath Gupta were shot dead and one person Nityanand had received bullet injuries as a result of the indiscriminate firing made by the petitioner and his accomplices Pradeep, Sanjeev, Raju, Pappu alias Deepi, Mohan Singh, Karan Singh, Kali Lala, Vimal, Pappu alias Rajnesh 3-4 unknown persons. On the basis of the F.I.R. of the incident lodged by the informant, Case Crime No. 332 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act was registered against the petitioner and other accused at Police Station Linepar, District Firozabad.

4. As a result of dare devil crime committed by the petitioner and his accomplices in broad day light in a densely populated area, an atmosphere of fear and terror had engulfed the local residents. Tempo of life and public order in the area was totally disturbed. In order to restore normalcy, additional police force had to be requisitioned from the nearby police stations. Top officers of police and district administration had to rush to the place of incident. The petitioner, who was nominated as an accused in the aforesaid case was arrested by the police on 06.08.2015 and sent in District Jail, Firozabad.

5. While the petitioner was in District Jail, Firozabad, he was served with the impugned detention order dated 18.09.2015 alongwith the grounds of detention.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a valid detention order should reflect that the authority was aware that the detenu was already in prison under judicial custody and there was reliable material before him on the basis of which he had reason to believe that there was every possibility of the detenu being released on bail and in case of such release the detenu would indulge in prejudicial activities and in order to prevent him from indulging in any activities affecting the public order or the tranquility of the community, it was imperative to pass an order for his preventive detention and unless the aforesaid satisfaction is recorded, the application of mind by the detaining authority cannot be proved and testing the impugned order on the aforesaid principle, the impugned order appears to suffer from vice of complete non application of mind.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that since on the date of the passing of the detention order, the petitioner was already in jail and mere possibility of his released on bail was not enough for preventive detention unless there was material before the respondent No. 3 justifying the apprehension that detenu would indulge in prejudicial activities in case of his release on bail. He next submitted that although the detaining authority has in the grounds of detention recorded his satisfaction that the petitioner who was in jail on account of his being accused in case crime No. 332 of 2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, had moved a bail application before the Sessions Judge and there was strong possibility of his being released on bail and in the eventuality of his being rele